The Sorgenfrey line is a well known topological space. It is the real number line with open intervals defined as sets of the form . Though this is a seemingly small tweak, it generates a vastly different space than the usual real number line. In this post, we look at the Sorgenfrey line from the continuous function perspective, in particular, the continuous functions that map the Sorgenfrey line into the real number line. In the process, we obtain insight into the space of continuous functions on the Sorgenfrey line.
The next post is a continuation on the theme of drawing Sorgenfrey continuous functions.
The Sorgenfrey Line
Let denote the real number line. The usual open intervals are of the form . The union of such open intervals is called an open set. If more than one topologies are considered on the real line, these open sets are referred to as the usual open sets or Euclidean open sets (on the real line). The open intervals form a base for the usual topology on the real line. One important fact abut the usual open sets is that the usual open sets can be generated by the intervals where both end points are rational numbers. Thus the usual topology on the real line is said to have a countable base.
Now tweak the usual topology by calling sets of the form open intervals. Then form open sets by taking unions of all such open intervals. The collection of such open sets is called the Sorgenfrey topology (on the real line). The real number line with the Sorgenfry topology is called the Sorgenfrey line, denoted by . The Sorgenfrey line has been discussed in this blog, starting with this post. This post examines continuous functions from into the real line. In the process, we gain insight on the space of continuous functions defined on .
Note that any usual open interval is the union of intervals of the form . Thus any usual (Euclidean) open set is an open set in the Sorgenfrey line. Thus the usual topology (on the real line) is contained in the Sorgenfrey topology, i.e. the usual topology is a weaker (coarser) topology.
Let be the set of all continuous functions where the domain is the real number line with the usual topology. Let be the set of all continuous functions where the domain is the Sorgenfrey line. In both cases, the range is always the number line with the usual topology. Based on the preceding paragraph, any continuous function is also continuous with respect to the Sorgenfrey line, i.e. .
Pictures of Continuous Functions
Consider the following two continuous functions.
The first one (Figure 1) is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the standard normal distribution. The second one (Figure 2) is the CDF of the uniform distribution on the interval where . Both of these are continuous in the usual Euclidean topology (in the domain). Such graphs would make regular appearance in a course on probability and statistics. They also show up in a calculus course as an everywhere differentiable curve (Figure 1) and as a differentiable curve except at finitely many points (Figure 2). Both of these functions can also be regarded as continuous functions on the Sorgenfrey line.
Consider a function that is continuous in the Sorgenfrey line but not continuous in the usual topology.
Figure 3 is a function that maps the interval to -1 and maps the interval to 1. It is not continuous in the usual topology because of the jump at . But it is a continuous function when the domain is considered to be the Sorgenfrey line. Because of the open intervals being , continuous functions defined on the Sorgenfrey line are right continuous.
The cumulative distribution function of a discrete probability distribution is always right continuous, hence continuous in the Sorgenfrey line. Here’s an example.
Figure 4 is the CDF of the uniform distribution on the finite set , where each point has probability 0.2. There is a jump of height 0.2 at each of the points from 0 to 4. Figure 3 and Figure 4 are step functions. As long as the left point of a step is solid and the right point is hollow, the step functions are continuous on the Sorgenfrey line.
The take away from the last four figures is that the real-valued continuous functions defined on the Sorgenfrey line are right continuous and that step functions (with the left point solid and the right point hollow) are Sorgenfrey continuous.
A Family of Sorgenfrey Continuous Functions
The four examples of continuous functions shown above are excellent examples to illustrate the Sorgenfrey topology. We now introduce a family of continuous functions for . These continuous functions will lead to additional insight on the function space whose domain space is the Sorgenfrey line.
For any , the following gives the definition and the graph of the function .
Function Space on the Sorgenfrey Line
This is the place where we switch the focus to function space. The set is a subset of the product space . So we can consider as a topological space endowed with the topology inherited as a subspace of . This topology on is called the pointwise convergence topology and with the product subspace topology is denoted by . See here for comments on how to work with the pointwise convergence topology.
For the present discussion, all we need is some notation on a base for . For , and for any open interval (open in the usual topology of the real number line), let . Then the collection of intersections of finitely many would form a base for .
The following is the main fact we wish to establish.
The function space contains a closed and discrete subspace of cardinality continuum. In particular, the set is a closed and discrete subspace of .
The above result will derive several facts on the function space , which are discussed in a section below. More interestingly, the proof of the fact that is a closed and discrete subspace of is based purely on the definition of the functions and the Sorgenfrey topology. The proof given below does not use any deep or high powered results from function space theory. So it should be a nice exercise on the Sorgenfrey topology.
I invite readers to either verify the fact independently of the proof given here or follow the proof closely. Lots of drawing of the functions on paper will be helpful in going over the proof. In this one instance at least, drawing continuous functions can help gain insight on function spaces.
Working out the Proof
The following diagram was helpful to me as I worked out the different cases in showing the discreteness of the family . The diagram is a valuable aid in convincing myself that a given case is correct.
Now the proof. First, is relatively discrete in . We show that for each , there is an open set containing such that does not contain for any . To this end, let where and are the open intervals and . With Figure 6 as an aid, it follows that for , and for , .
The open set contains , the function in the middle of Figure 6. Note that for , and . Thus . On the other hand, for , and . Thus . This proves that the set is a discrete subspace of relative to itself.
Now we show that is closed in . To this end, we show that
-
for each , there is an open set containing such that contains at most one point of .
Actually, this has already been done above with points that are in . One thing to point out is that the range of is . As we consider , we only need to consider that maps into . Let . The argument is given in two cases regarding the function .
Case 1. There exists some such that .
We assume that and . Then for all , and for all , . Let . Then and contains no for any and for any . To help see this argument, use Figure 6 as a guide. The case that and has a similar argument.
Case 2. For every , we have .
Claim. The function is constant on the interval . Suppose not. Let such that . Suppose that . Consider . Clearly the number is an upper bound of . Let be a least upper bound of . The function has value 1 on the interval . Otherwise, would not be the least upper bound of the set . There is a sequence of points in the interval such that from the left such that for all . Otherwise, would not be the least upper bound of the set .
It follows that . Otherwise, the function is not continuous at . Now consider the 6 points . By the assumption in Case 2, and . Since for all , for all . Note that from the right. Since is right continuous, , contradicting . Thus we cannot have .
Now suppose we have where . Consider . Clearly has an upper bound, namely the number . Let be a least upper bound of . The function has value 0 on the interval . Otherwise, would not be the least upper bound of the set . There is a sequence of points in the interval such that from the left such that for all . Otherwise, would not be the least upper bound of the set .
It follows that . Otherwise, the function is not continuous at . Now consider the 6 points . By the assumption in Case 2, and . Since for all , for all . Note that from the right. Since is right continuous, , contradicting . Thus we cannot have .
The claim that the function is constant on the interval is established. To wrap up, first assume that the function is 1 on the interval . Let . It is clear that . It is also clear from Figure 5 that contains no . Now assume that the function is 0 on the interval . Since is Sorgenfrey continuous, it follows that . Let . It is clear that . It is also clear from Figure 5 that contains no .
We have established that the set is a closed and discrete subspace of .
What does it Mean?
The above argument shows that the set is a closed an discrete subspace of the function space . We have the following three facts.
Three Results |
|
To show that is separable, let’s look at one basic helpful fact on . If is a separable metric space, e.g. , then has quite a few nice properties (discussed here). One is that is hereditarily separable. Thus , the space of real-valued continuous functions defined on the number line with the pointwise convergence topology, is hereditarily separable and thus separable. Recall that continuous functions in are also Soregenfrey line continuous. Thus is a subspace of . The space is also a dense subspace of . Thus the space contains a dense separable subspace. It means that is separable.
Secondly, is not hereditarily separable since the subspace is a closed and discrete subspace.
Thirdly, is not a normal space. According to Jones’ lemma, any separable space with a closed and discrete subspace of cardinality of continuum is not a normal space (see Corollary 1 here). The subspace is a closed and discrete subspace of the separable space . Thus is not normal.
Remarks
The topology of the Sorgenfrey line is vastly different from the usual topology on the real line even though the the Sorgenfrey topology is obtained by a seemingly small tweak from the usual topology. The real line is a metric space while the Sorgenfrey line is not metrizable. The real number line is connected while the Sorgenfrey line is not. The countable power of the real number line is a metric space and thus a normal space. On the other hand, the Sorgenfrey line is a classic example of a normal space whose square is not normal. See here for a basic discussion of the Sorgenfrey line.
The pictures of Sorgenfrey continuous functions demonstrated here show that the real number line and the Sorgenfrey line are also very different from a function space perspective. The function space has a whole host of nice properties: normal, Lindelof (hence paracompact and collectionwise normal), hereditarily Lindelof (hence hereditarily normal), hereditarily separable, and perfectly normal (discussed here).
Though separable, the function space contains a closed and discrete subspace of cardinality continuum, making it not hereditarily separable and not normal.
For more information about in general and in particular, see [1] and [2]. A different proof that contains a closed and discrete subspace of cardinality continuum can be found in Problem 165 in [2].
The next post is a continuation on the theme of drawing Sorgenfrey continuous functions.
Reference
- Arkhangelskii, A. V., Topological Function Spaces, Mathematics and Its Applications Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992.
- Tkachuk V. V., A -Theory Problem Book, Topological and Function Spaces, Springer, New York, 2011.
2017 – Dan Ma
A strategy for finding CCC and non-separable spaces
In this post we present a general strategy for finding CCC spaces that are not separable. As illustration, we give four implementations of this strategy.
In searching for counterexamples in topology, one good place to look is of course the book by Steen and Seebach [2]. There are four examples of spaces that are CCC but not separable found in [2] – counterexamples 20, 21, 24 and 63. Counterexamples 20 and 21 are not Hausdorff. Counterexample 24 is the uncountable Fort space (it is completely normal but not perfectly normal). Counterexample 63 (Countable Complement Extension Topology) is Hausdorff but is not regular. These are valuable examples especially the last two (24 and 63). The examples discussed below expand the offerings in Steen and Seebach.
The discussion of CCC but not separable in this post does not use axioms beyond the usual axioms of set theory (i.e. ZFC). The discussion here does not touch on Suslin lines or other examples that require extra set theory. The existence of Suslin lines is independent of ZFC. A Suslin line would produce an example of a perfectly normal first countable CCC non-separable space. In models of set theory where Suslin lines do not exist, a perfectly normal first countable CCC non-separable space can also be produced using other set-theoretic assumptions. The examples discussed below are not as nice as the set-theoretic examples since they usually are not first countable and perfectly normal.
____________________________________________________________________
The countable chain conditon
A topological space is said to have the countable chain condition (to have the CCC for short) if is a disjoint collection of non-empty open subsets of (meaning that for any with , we have ), then is countable. In other words, in a space with the CCC, there cannot be uncountably many pairwise disjoint non-empty open sets. For ease of discussion, if has the CCC, we also say that is a CCC space or X is CCC. A space is separable if there exists a countable subset of such that is dense in (meaning that if is a nonempty open subset of , then ).
It is clear that any separable space has the CCC. In metric spaces, these two properties are equivalent. Among topological spaces in general, the two properties are not identical. Thus “CCC but not separable” is one way to distinguish between metrizable spaces and non-metrizable spaces. Even in non-metrizable spaces, “CCC but not separable” is also a way to obtain more information about the spaces being investigated.
____________________________________________________________________
The strategy
Here’s the strategy for finding CCC and not separable.
-
The strategy is to narrow the focus to spaces where “CCC and not separable” is likely to exist. Specifically, look for a space or a class of spaces such that each space in the class has the countable chain condition but is not hereditarily separable. If the non-separable subspace is also a dense subspace of the starting space, it would be “CCC and not separable.”
Any dense subspace of a CCC space always has the CCC. Thus the search focuses on the subspaces in a CCC space that are reliably CCC. The strategy is to find non-separable spaces among these dense subspaces. The search is given an assist if the space or class of spaces in question has a characteristic that delineate the “separable” from the CCC (see Example 3 and Example 4 below).
In the following sections, we illustrate four different ways to apply the strategy.
____________________________________________________________________
Example 1
The first way is a standard example found in the literature. The space to start from is the product space of separable spaces, which is always CCC. By a theorem of Ross and Stone, the product of more than continuum many separable spaces is not separable. Thus one way to get an example of CCC but not separable space is to take the product of more than continuum many separable spaces. For example, if is the cardinality of continuum, then consider , the product of many copies of , or consider where is your favorite separable space.
____________________________________________________________________
Example 2
The second implementation of the strategy is also from taking the product of separable spaces. This time the number of factors does not have to be more than continuum. Here, we focus on one particular dense subspace of the product space, the -products. To make this clear, let’s focus on a specific example. Consider where is the cardinality of continuum. Consider the following subspace.
The subspace is dense in , thus has CCC. It is straightforward to verify that is not separable.
To implement this example, find any space which is a product space of separable spaces, each of which has at least two point (one of the points is labeled 0). The dense subspace is the -product, which is the subspace consisting of all points that are non-zero at only countably many coordinates. The -product has the countable chain condition since it is a dense subspace of the CCC space . The -product is not separable since there are uncountably many factors in the product space and that each factor has at least two points. This idea had been implemented in this previous post.
____________________________________________________________________
Example 3
The third class of spaces is the class of Pixley-Roy spaces, which are hyperspaces. Given a space , let be the set of all non-empty finite subsets of . For and for any open subset of , let . The sets over all and form a base for a topology on . This topology is called the Pixley-Roy topology (or Pixley-Roy hyperspace topology). The set with this topology is called a Pixley-Roy space.
The Pixley-Roy hyperspaces are discussed in this previous post. Whenever the ground space is uncountable, is not a separable space. We need to identify the that are CCC. According to the previous post on Pixley-Roy hyperspaces, for any space with a countable network, is CCC. Thus for any uncountable space with a countable network, the Pixley-Roy space is a CCC space that is not separable. The following gives a few such examples.
where is any uncountable, separable and metrizable space.
where is uncountable and is the continuous image of a separable metrizable space.
Spaces with countable networks are discussed in this previous post. An example of a space that is the continuous image of a separable metrizable space is the bow-tie space found this previous post. Another example is any quote space of a separable metrizable space.
____________________________________________________________________
Example 4
For the fourth implementation of the strategy, we go back to the product space of separable spaces in Example 2, with the exception that the focus is on the product of the real line . Let be any uncountable completely regular space. The product space always has the CCC since it is a product of separable space. Now we single out a dense subspace of for which there is a characterization for separability, namely the subspace , which is the set of all continuous functions from into . The subspace as a topological space is usually denoted by . For a basic discussion of , see this previous post.
We know precisely when is separable. The following theorem captures the idea.
Theorem 1 – Theorem I.1.3 [1]
The function space is separable if and only if the domain space has a weaker (or coarser) separable metric topology (in other words, is submetrizable with a separable metric topology).
Based on the theorem, is separable for any separable metric space . Other examples of separable include spaces that are created by tweaking the usual Euclidean topology on the real line and at the same time retaining the usual real line topology as a weaker topology, e.g. the Sorgenfrey line and the Michael line. Thus would be separable if is a space such as the Sorgenfrey line or the Michael line. For our purpose at hand, we need to look for spaces that are not like the Sorgenfrey line or the Michael line. Here’s some examples of spaces that have no weaker separable metric topology.
- Any compact space that is not metrizable.
- The space , the first uncountable ordinal with the order topology.
- Any space where is not separable.
The function space for any one of the above three spaces has the CCC but is not separable. It is well known that any compact space with a weaker metrizable topology is metrizable. Some examples for compact are: the first uncountable successor ordinal , the double arrow space, and the product space .
It can be shown that is not separable (see this previous post). The last example is due to the following theorem.
Theorem 2 – Theorem I.1.4 [1]
The function space has a weaker (or coarser) separable metric topology if and only if the domain space is separable.
Thus picking a non-separable space would guarantee that has no weaker separable metric topology. As a result, is a CCC and not separable space.
Interestingly, Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 show a duality existing between the property of having a weaker separable metric topology and the property of being separable. The two theorems allow us to switch the two properties between the domain space and the function space.
____________________________________________________________________
Remarks
Another interesting point to make is that Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 together allow us to “buy one get one free.” Once we obtain a space that is CCC and not separable from any one of the avenues discussed here, the function space has no weaker separable metric topology (by Theorem 2) and the function space is another example of CCC and not separable.
The strategy discussed above unifies all four examples. Undoubtedly there will be other examples that can come from the strategy. To find more examples, find a space or a class of spaces that are reliably CCC and then look for potential non-separable spaces among the dense subspaces of the starting space.
____________________________________________________________________
Exercises
- Show that in metrizable spaces, CCC and separable are equivalent. The only part that needs to be shown is that if is metrizable and CCC, then is separable.
- Show that any dense subspace of a CCC space is also CCC.
- Verify that the space defined in Example 2 is dense in and is not separable.
- Verify that the Pixley-Roy space defined in Example 3 is CCC and not separable.
- Verify that function space mentioned in Example 4 is not separable. Hint: use the pressing down lemma.
____________________________________________________________________
Reference
- Arkhangelskii, A. V., Topological Function Spaces, Mathematics and Its Applications Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992.
- Steen, L. A., Seebach, J. A., Counterexamples in Topology, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1995.
____________________________________________________________________
Revised October 26, 2018
Cp(X) where X is a separable metric space
Let be an uncountable cardinal. Let be the Cartesian product of many copies of the real line. This product space is not normal since it contains as a closed subspace. However, there are dense subspaces of are normal. For example, the -product of copies of the real line is normal, i.e., the subspace of consisting of points which have at most countably many non-zero coordinates (see this post). In this post, we look for more normal spaces among the subspaces of that are function spaces. In particular, we look at spaces of continuous real-valued functions defined on a separable metrizable space, i.e., the function space where is a separable metrizable space.
For definitions of basic open sets and other background information on the function space , see this previous post.
____________________________________________________________________
when is a separable metric space
In the remainder of the post, denotes a separable metrizable space. Then, is more than normal. The function space has the following properties:
- normal,
- Lindelof (hence paracompact and collectionwise normal),
- hereditarily Lindelof (hence hereditarily normal),
- hereditarily separable,
- perfectly normal.
All such properties stem from the fact that has a countable network whenever is a separable metrizable space.
Let be a topological space. A collection of subsets of is said to be a network for if for each and for each open with , there exists some such that . A countable network is a network that has only countably many elements. The property of having a countable network is a very strong property, e.g., having all the properties listed above. For a basic discussion of this property, see this previous post and this previous post.
To define a countable network for , let be a countable base for the domain space . For each and for any open interval in the real line with rational endpoints, consider the following set:
There are only countably many sets of the form . Let be the collection of sets, each of which is the intersection of finitely many sets of the form . Then is a network for the function space . To see this, let where is a basic open set in where is finite and each is an open interval with rational endpoints. For each point , choose with such that . Clearly . It follows that .
Examples include , and . All three can be considered subspaces of the product space where is the cardinality of the continuum. This is true for any separable metrizable . Note that any separable metrizable can be embedded in the product space . The product space has cardinality . Thus the cardinality of any separable metrizable space is at most continuum. So is the subspace of a product space of continuum many copies of the real lines, hence can be regarded as a subspace of .
A space has countable extent if every closed and discrete subset of is countable. The -product of the separable metric spaces is a dense and normal subspace of the product space . The normal space has countable extent (hence collectionwise normal). The examples of discussed here are Lindelof and hence have countable extent. Many, though not all, dense normal subspaces of products of separable metric spaces have countable extent. For a dense normal subspace of a product of separable metric spaces, one interesting problem is to find out whether it has countable extent.
____________________________________________________________________
Working with the function space Cp(X)
This post provides basic information about the space of real-valued continuous functions with the pointwise convergence topology. The goal is to discuss the setting and to define the standard basic open sets in the function space, providing background information for subsequent posts.
____________________________________________________________________
Completely Regular Spaces
The starting point is a completely regular space. A space is said to be completely regular if is a space and for each and for each closed subset of with , there is a continuous function such that and . Note that the axiom and the existence of the continuous function imply the axiom, which is equivalent to the property that single points are closed sets. Completely regular spaces are also called Tychonoff spaces.
____________________________________________________________________
Defining the Function Space
Let be a completely regular space. Let be the set of all real-valued continuous functions defined on the space . The set is naturally a subspace of the product space . Thus can be endowed with the subspace topology inherited from the product space . When this is the case, the function space is denoted by . The topology on is called the pointwise convergence topology.
Now we need a good handle on the open sets in the function space . A basic open set in the product space is of the form where each is an open subset of such that for all but finitely many (equivalently for only finitely many ). Thus a basic open set in is of the form:
where each is an open subset of and for all but finitely many . In addition, when , we can take to be an open interval of the form . To simplify notation, the basic open sets as described in (1) can also be notated by:
Thus when working with open sets in , we take to mean the set of all such that for each .
To make the basic open sets of more explicit, (1) or (1a) is translated as follows:
where is a finite set, for each , is an open interval of , and is the set of all such that .
There is another description of basic open sets that is useful. Let . Let be finite. Let . Let be defined as follows:
In proving results about , we can use basic open sets that are described in any one of the three forms (1), (2) and (3). If is a basic open subset of , as described in (1) or (1a), we use to denote the finite set of such that . The set is called the support of . The support for the basic open sets as described in (2) and (3) is already explicitly stated.
____________________________________________________________________
Basic Discussion
The theory of is a vast subject area. For a systematic introduction, see [1]. One fundamental theme in function space theory is the study of how properties of and are related. The domain space and the function space are not on the same footing. The domain only has a topological structure. The function space carries a topology and two natural algebraic operations of addition and multiplication, making it a topological ring. In addition, can be regarded as a topological group, or a linear topological space. In this post and in many subsequent posts, we narrow the focus to the topological properties of and , paying attention to the how the topological properties of and are related.
In addition to the pointwise convergence topology, there are other topologies that can be defined on , e.g., the compact-open topology, the topology of uniform convergence and others. Both the pointwise convergence topology and the compact-open topology are examples of set-open topologies. In this post and in many of the subsequent posts, the focus is on the pointwise convergence topology, i.e., the subspace topology on inherited from the product space.
The space automatically inherits certain properties of the product space . Note that is dense in . The product has the countable chain condition (CCC) since it is a product of separable spaces. Hence always has the CCC, i.e., there are no uncountably many pairwise disjoint open subsets of , regardless what the domain space is. One consequence of the CCC is that is paracompact if and only if is Lindelof.
It is well known that is separable if and only if the cardinality of continuum. Since is dense in , is not separable if the cardinality of continuum. Thus is one way to get a CCC space that is not separable. There are non-separable where the cardinality of continuum. Obtaining such would require more than the properties of the product space ; using properties of would be necessary.
The properties of discussed so far are inherited from the product space. Refer to chapter one of [1] for other elementary properties of . See this post for a discussion of where is a separable metric space. See this post about a consequence of normality of .
____________________________________________________________________
Reference
- Arkhangelskii, A. V., Topological Function Spaces, Mathematics and Its Applications Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992.
____________________________________________________________________
A factorization theorem for products of separable spaces
Let be a product space. Let be a continuous function where is a topological space. In this post, we discuss what it means for the continuous function to depend on countably many coordinates and then discuss some conditions that we can impose on the product space and on the range space to ensure that every continuous defined on the product space will depend on countably many coordinates. This notion of a continuous function depending on countably many coordinates is equivalent to factoring the continuous function into the composition of a projection map and a continuous function defined on a countable subproduct (see Lemma 1 below).
Let’s set some notation about the product space we work with in this post. Let be a product space. Let be a topological space. Let be continuous. For any , is the natural projection from the full product space into the subproduct . Standard basic open sets of are of the form where each is open in and that for all but finitely many . We use to denote the finite set of where .
____________________________________________________________________
Factoring a Continuous Map
The function is said to depend on countably many coordinates if there exists a countable set such that for any , if for all , then . Suppose is instead defined on a subspace of . The function is said to depend on countably many coordinates if there exists a countable such that for any , if for all , then .
We have the following lemmas.
Lemma 1
-
Let be a product space. Let be a topological space. Let be continuous. Then the following are equivalent.
- There exists a countable such that for any , if for all , then .
- There exists a countable such that where is continuous.
Lemma 1a
-
Let be a product space. Let be a topological space. Let be a dense subspace of . Let be continuous. Then the following are equivalent.
- There exists a countable such that for any , if for all , then .
- There exists a countable such that where is continuous.
It is straightforward to verify Lemma 1 and Lemma 1a. We use condition 1 to define what it means for a function to be dependent on countably many coordinates. Both lemmas indicate that either condition is a valid definition. These two lemmas also indicate why the notion being discussed can be called a factorization notion.
____________________________________________________________________
When a Continuous Map Can Be Factored
We discuss some conditions that we can place on the product space and on the range space so that any continuous map depends on countably many coordinates. We prove the following theorem.
Theorem 1
-
Let be a product space such that each factor is a separable space. Let be a second countable space (i.e. having a countable base). Then for any dense subspace of , any continuous function depends on countably many coordinates, i.e., either one of the conditions in Lemma 1a holds.
Before stating the main theorem, we need one more lemma. Let . The set is said to depend on countably many coordinates if there exists a countable such that for any and for any , if for all , then .
When we try to determine whether a function , where , can be factored, we will need to decide whether a set depends on countably many coordinates. Let . The set is said to depend on countably many coordinates if there exists a countable such that for any and for any , if for all , then . We have the following lemma.
Lemma 2
-
Let be a product space with the countable chain condition. Let be a dense subspace of .
- Let be an open subset of . Then depends on countably many coordinates.
- Let be an open subset of . Then depends on countably many coordinates (closure in ).
Proof of Lemma 2
Proof of Part 1
Let be open. Let be a collection of pairwise disjoint open subsets of the open set such that is maximal with this property, i.e., if you throw one more open set into , it will be no longer pairwise disjoint. Let . Since is maximal, . Since has the countable chain condition, is countable.
Let . The set is a countable subset of since is the union of countably many finite sets. We have the following claims.
Claim 1
The open set depends on the coordinates in .
Let and such that for all . We need to show that . Firstly, for some . It follows that for all . Thus . This completes the proof of Claim 1.
Claim 2
The set depends on the coordinates in .
Let and such that for all . We need to show . To this end, let be a standard basic open set with . The goal is to find some . Define such that for all and for all . Then . Since , there exists some . Define such that for all and for all . Since , . On the other hand, . This completes the proof of Claim 2.
As noted above, . Thus depends on countably many coordinates, namely the coordinates in the set . This completes the proof of Part 1.
Proof of Part 2
For any , let denote the closure of in . Let denote the closure of in . Let be open. Let be open in such that . By Part 1, depends on countably many coordinates, say the coordinates in the countable set . This means that for any and for any , if for all , then . Thus for any and for any , if for all , then . If we have , then we are done. So we only need to show that if and , then . This is why we need to assume is dense in .
Let and . Let be an open subset of with . There exists an open subset of such that . Then . Note that is open and . Since is dense in , must contain points of . These points of are also points of . Thus contains points of . It follows that . This concludes the proof of Part 2.
Proof of Theorem 1
Let be a dense subspace of . Let be continuous. Let be a countable base for the separable metrizable space . By Lemma 2 Part 2, for each , depends on countably many coordinates, say the countable set . Let .
We claim that is a countable set of coordinates we need. Let such that for all . We need to show that . Suppose . Choose such that
- for each
This is possible since is a second countable space. Then for some . Furthermore, . Since is continuous, . Therefore, . On the other hand, depends on the countably many coordinates in . We assume above that for all . Thus for all . This means that , a contradiction. It must be that case that .
____________________________________________________________________
Another Version
We state another version of Theorem 1 that will be useful in some situations.
Theorem 2
-
Let be a product space such that each factor is a separable space. Let be a second countable space. Let be a dense subspace of . Let be any continuous function. Then the function depends on countably many coordinates, which means either one of the following two conditions:
- There exists a countable set such that for any , if and for all , then .
- There exists a countable set and there exists a continuous such that .
The map is the projection map from into the subproduct defined by . In Theorem 2, we only need to consider being defined on the subspace .
Theorem 2 follows from Theorem 1. It is only a matter of fitting Theorem 2 in the framework of Theorem 1. Note that the product is identical to the product where is a disjoint copy of the index set . For , let be defined by for all and for all .
With the identification of with , we have a setting that fits Theorem 1. The product is also a product of separable spaces. The set is a dense subspace of the product . In this new setting, we view a point in as . The map is still a continuous map. We can now apply Theorem 1.
Let be a countable set such that for all , if for all , then . Specifically, if for all and for all , then .
Choose a countable set such that and . Here, is the copy of in . We claim that is a countable set we need in condition 1 of Theorem 2. Let such that and for all . This implies that for all and for all . Then . Thus condition 1 of Theorem 2 holds. It is also straightforward to verify that Condition 1 and Condition 2 are equivalent.
____________________________________________________________________
Remarks
The notion of factorizing a continuous map defined on a product space is an old topic. Theorem 1 discussed in this post is based on Theorem 4 found in [6]. Theorem 4 found in [6] is to factor continuous maps defined on a product of separable spaces. Theorem 1 in this post is modified to consider continuous maps defined on a dense subspace of a product of separable spaces. This modification will make it more useful. The references listed below represent a small sample of papers or books that have involves theorems of factoring functions defined on products. The work in [3] and [5] have more systematic treatment.
____________________________________________________________________
Reference
- Brandenburg H., Husek M., On mappings from products into developable spaces, Topology Appl., 26, 229-238, 1987.
- Engelking R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
- Engelking R., On functions defined on Cartesian products, Fund. Math., 59, 221-231, 1966.
- Keesling J., Normality and infinite product spaces, Adv. in. Math., 9, 90-92, 1972.
- Noble N., Ulmer M., Factoring functions on Cartesian products, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 163, 329-339, 1972.
- Ross K. A., Stone A. H., Products of separable spaces, Amer. Math. Monthly, 71, 398-403, 1964.
____________________________________________________________________
A lemma dealing with normality in products of separable metric spaces
In this post we prove a lemma that is a great tool for working with product spaces of separable metrizable spaces. As an application of the lemma, we give an alternative proof for showing the non-normality of the product space of uncountably many copies of the discrete space of the non-negative integers.
Consider the product space where each is a separable and metrizable space. The lemma we discuss here is a tool that can shed some light on normality of dense subspaces of the product space . The lemma is stated in two equivalent forms (Lemma 1 and Lemma 2).
Before stating the lemmas, let’s fix some notations. For any , the map is the natural projection from the full product to the subproduct . The standard basic open sets in the product space are of the form where for all but finitely many . We use to denote the set of finitely many such that .
Given a space , and given , the sets and are separated if .
Lemma 1
-
Let be a product of separable metrizable spaces. Let be a dense subspace of . For any sets , the following two conditions are equivalent:
- There exist disjoint open subsets and of such that and .
- There exists a countable such that the sets and are separated in the space .
Lemma 2
-
Let be a product of separable metrizable spaces. Let be a dense subspace of . Then is normal if and only if for each pair of disjoint closed subsets and of , there exists a countable such that and are separated in .
If Lemma 1 holds, it is clear that Lemma 2 holds. We prove Lemma 1. The lemmas indicate that to separate disjoint sets in the full product, it suffices to separate in a countable subproduct. In this sense normality in dense subspaces of a product of separable metrizable spaces only depends on countably many coordinates.
This lemma seems to have been around for a long time. We cannot find any reference of this lemma in Engelking’s topology textbook (see [4]). We found three references. One is Corson’s paper (see [3]), in which the lemma is mentioned in relation to the non-normality of and is attributed to a paper of M. Bockstein in 1948. Another is a paper of Baturov (see [2]), in which the lemma is used to prove a theorem about normality in dense subspace of where is a separable metric space. In [2] the lemma is attributed to Uspenskii. Another reference is Arkhangelskii’s book on function space (see Lemma I.6.1 on p. 43 in [1]) where the lemma is used in proving some facts about normality in function spaces .
____________________________________________________________________
Proof of Lemma 1
Let and be disjoint open subsets of with and . Let and be open subsets of such that and . Since is dense in , .
Let be a maximal pairwise disjoint collection of standard basic open sets, each of which is a subset of . Let be a maximal pairwise disjoint collection of standard basic open sets, each of which is a subset of . These two collections can be obtained using a Zorn lemma argument. The product space has the countable chain condition since it is a product of separable spaces. So both and are countable. Let be the union of finite sets each one of which is a where . The set is countable too.
Let and . Note that . We have the following observations:
-
and
The above observations lead to the following observations:
implying that . Both and are open subsets of and are dense in , respectively.
We claim that . Suppose that . Then contains a point of , say . With , for some where . Note that . Thus . On the other hand, implies that for some . It follows that , a contradiction. Therefore .
We have and . This implies that and (closure in ). Then and are separated in as well. This concludes the proof for the direction.
Suppose that is countable such that and are separated in the space . Note that and . Then we have the following:
Consider . The space is an open subspace of . Furthermore, is a subspace of , which is a separable and metrizable space. Thus the space is metrizable and hence normal.
For , let denote the closure of in the space . Note that and are disjoint and closed sets in . Let and be disjoint open subsets of such that and . Then and are disjoint open subsets of such that and .
____________________________________________________________________
Remark
The proof of Lemma 1 does not need the full strength of separable metric in each factor of the product space. The above proof only makes two assumptions about the product space: the product space has the countable chain condition (CCC) and that any countable subproduct is normal, i.e., is normal for any countable .
____________________________________________________________________
Example
As an application of the above lemma, we give another proof of the non-normality of the product space of uncountably many copies of the discrete space of the non-negative integers. See this post for a version of A. H. Stone’s original proof.
Let be the set of all nonnegative integers and let be the first uncountable ordinal (i.e. the set of all countable ordinals). We provide an alternative proof that is not normal. In A. H. Stone’s proof, the following disjoint closed sets cannot be separated in :
We can also use Lemma 1 to show that and cannot be separated. Note that for each countable , the sets and have non-empty intersection. Hence they cannot be separated in . By Lemma 1, and cannot be separated in the full product space .
To see that , choose a function such that . Let be defined by for all . Then .
____________________________________________________________________
Reference
- Arkhangelskii, A. V., Topological Function Spaces, Mathematics and Its Applications Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992.
- Baturov, D. P., Normality in dense subspaces of products, Topology Appl., 36, 111-116, 1990.
- Corson, H. H., Normality in subsets of product spaces, Amer. J. Math., 81, 785-796, 1959.
- Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
____________________________________________________________________
Looking for a closed and discrete subspace of a product space
I had long suspected that there probably is an uncountable closed and discrete subset of the product space of uncountably many copies of the real line. Then I found the statement in the Encyclopedia of General Topology (page 76 in [3]) that “for every infinite cardinal , the product includes as a closed subspace” where is the discrete space of cardinality of . When (the first infinite cardinal), there is a closed and discrete subset of cardinality in the product space (the product space of continuum many copies of a countable discrete space). Despite the fact that this product space is a separable space, a closed and discrete set of cardinality continuum is hiding in the product space . What is more amazing is that this result gives us a glimpse into the working of the product topology with uncountably many factors. There are easily defined discrete subspaces of . But these discrete subspaces are not closed in the product space, making the result indicated here a remarkable one.
The Encyclopedia of General Topology points to two references [2] and [4]. I could not find these papers online. It turns out that Engelking, the author of [2], included this fact as an exercise in his general topology textbook (see Exercise 3.1.H (a) in [1]). This post presents a proof of this fact based on the hints that are given in [1]. To make the argument easier to follow, the proof uses some of the hints in a slightly different form.
____________________________________________________________________
The Exercise
Let be the closed unit interval. Let be the unit interval with the discrete topology. Let be the set of all nonnegative integers with the discrete topology. Let where each . We can also denote by . The problem is to show that the discrete space can be embedded as a closed and discrete subspace of .
____________________________________________________________________
A Solution
For each , choose a sequence of open intervals (in the usual topology of ) such that
- for each ,
- for each (the closure is in the usual topology of ),
- .
For any , we can make open intervals of the form . For , have the form . For , have the form .
The above sequences of open intervals help define a homeomorphic embedding of the discrete space into the product . For each , define the function by letting:
for each . We now define the embedding by letting:
for each . For each point , is the point in the product space such that the coordinate of is the value of the function evaluated at . Let .
The mapping is an evaluation map (called diagonal map in [1]). It is a homeomorphism if the following three conditions are met:
- If each is continuous, then is continuous.
- If the family of functions separates points in , then is injective (i.e. a one-to-one function).
- If separates points from closed sets in , then the inverse is also continuous.
The first point is easily seen. Note that both the domain and the range of have the discrete topology. Thus these functions are continuous. To see the second point, let with . Note that while .
Since is discrete, any subset of is closed. To see the third point, let and . Once again, while for all . Clearly (closure in the discrete space ). Thus is also continuous. For more details about why is an embedding, see the previous post called The Evaluation Map.
Let . Since is a homeomorphism, is a discrete subspace of the product space . We only need to show is closed in . Let such that . We show that there is an open neighborhood of that misses the set . There are two cases to consider. One is that for all . The other is that for some . The first case is more involved.
Case 1
Suppose that for all . First define a local base of the point . Let be finite and let be defined by:
Let be the set of all possible . For an arbitrary , consider . By definition, . To make the argument below easier to see, let’s further describe .
The last description above indicates that if and if , then . To wrap up Case 1, we would like to produce one particular . Consider the open cover of . Since is compact in the usual topology, there is a finite such that . This means that for this particular finite set , . Putting it in another way, the open neighborhood of contains no point of . The proof for Case 1 is completed.
Case 2
Suppose that for some . Since , in particular . So for some , . Now define the following open set containing .
Note that since . Furthermore, for each , since . Thus is an open neighborhood of containing no point of . The proof for Case 2 is completed.
We have shown that the image of the discrete space under the homeomorphism is closed in the product space .
____________________________________________________________________
Comments
The preceding proof shows that the product space of continuum many copies of contains a closed and discrete subspace of cardinality continuum. This is a remarkable result. At a glance, it is not entirely clear that a closed and discrete set of this large size can be found in the product space in question.
One immediate consequence is that the product space is not normal since it is a separable space. By Jones’ lemma, any separable normal space cannot have a closed and discrete subset of cardinality continuum. However, if the goal is only to show non-normality, we only need to show that is not normal (a proof is found in this post). Thus the value of the preceding proof is to demonstrate how to produce a closed and discrete subspace of cardinality continuum in the product space in question.
____________________________________________________________________
Reference
- Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
- Engelking, R., On the double circumference of Alexandroff, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci., 16, 629-634, 1968.
- Hart, K. P., Nagata J. I., Vaughan, J. E., editors, Encyclopedia of General Topology, First Edition, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V, Amsterdam, 2003.
- Juhasz, I., On closed discrete subspace of product spaces, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci., 17, 219-223, 1969.
____________________________________________________________________
A theorem about CCC spaces
It is a well known result in general topology that in any regular space with the countable chain condition, paracompactness and the Lindelof property are equivalent. The proof of this result hinges on one theorem about the spaces with the countable chain condition. In this post we are to put the spotlight on this theorem (Theorem 1 below) and then use it to prove a few results. These results indicate that in a space with the countable chain condition with some weaker covering property is either Lindelof or paracompact.
This post is centered on a theorem about the CCC property (Theorem 1 and Theorem 1a below). So it can be considered as a continuation of a previous post on CCC called Some basic properties of spaces with countable chain condition. The results that are derived from Theorem 1 are also found in [2]. But the theorem concerning CCC is only a small part of that paper among several other focuses. In this post, the exposition is to explain several interesting theorems that are derived from Theorem 1. One of the theorems is the statement that every locally compact metacompact perfectly normal space is paracompact, a theorem originally proved by Arhangelskii (see Theorem 11 below).
____________________________________________________________________
CCC Spaces
All spaces under consideration are at least and regular. A space is said to have the countable chain condition (to have the CCC for short) if is a disjoint collection of non-empty open subsets of (meaning that for any with , we have ), then is countable. In other words, in a space with the CCC, there cannot be uncountably many pairwise disjoint non-empty open sets. For ease of making a statement or stating a result, if has the CCC, we also say that is a CCC space or is CCC.
____________________________________________________________________
A Theorem about CCC Spaces
The theorem of CCC spaces we want to discuss has to do with collections of open sets that are “nice”. We first define what we mean by nice. Let be a collection of non-empty subsets of the space . The collection is said to be point-finite (point-countable) if each point of belongs to only finitely (countably) many sets in .
Now we define what we mean by “nice” collection of open sets. The collection is said to be locally finite (locally countable) at a point if there exists an open set with such that meets at most finitely (countably) many sets in . The collection is said to be locally finite (locally countable) if it is locally finite (locally countable) at each .
The property of being a separable space implies the CCC. The reverse is not true. However the CCC property is still a very strong property. The CCC property is equivalent to the property that if a collection of non-empty open sets is “nice” on a dense set of points, then the collection of open sets is a countable collection. The following is a precise statement.
-
Theorem 1
-
Let be a CCC space. Then if is a collection of non-empty open subsets of such that the following set
is dense in the open subspace , then must be countable.
The collections of open sets in the above theorem do not have to be open covers. However, if they are open covers, the theorem can tie CCC spaces with some covering properties. As long as the space has the CCC, any open cover that is locally-countable on a dense set must be countable. Looking at it in the contrapositive angle, in a CCC space, any uncountable open cover is not locally-countable in some open set.
Proof of Theorem 1
Let be a collection of open subsets of such that the set as defined above is dense in the open subspace . We show that is countable. Suppose not.
For each , since , we can choose a non-empty open set such that has non-empty intersection with only countably many sets in . Let be the following collection:
For , by a chain from to , we mean a finite collection
such that , and for any . For each open set , define and as follows:
One observation we make is that for , if , then and . So the distinct are pairwise disjoint. Because the space has the CCC, there can be only countably many distinct open sets . Thus there can be only countably many distinct collections .
Note that each is a countable collection of open sets. Each meets only countably many open sets in . So each can meet only countably many sets in , since for each , for some . Thus for each , in considering all finite-length chain starting from , there can be only countably many open sets in that can be linked to . Thus must be countable. In taking the union of all , we get back the collection . Thus we have:
Because the space is CCC, there are only countably many distinct collections in the above union. Each is countable. So is a countable collection of open sets.
Furthermore, each contains at least one set in . From the way we choose sets in , we see that for each , for at most countably many . The argument indicates that we have a one-to-countable mapping from to . Thus the original collection must be countable.
The property in Theorem 1 is actually equivalent to the CCC property. Just that the proof of Theorem 1 represents the hard direction that needs to be proved. Theorem 1 can be expanded to be the following theorem.
-
Theorem 1a
- The space has the CCC.
- If is a collection of non-empty open subsets of such that the following set
is dense in the open subspace , then must be countable.
- If is a collection of non-empty open subsets of such that is locally-countable at every point in the open subspace , then must be countable.
-
Let be a space. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
The direction has been proved above. The directions and are straightforward.
____________________________________________________________________
Tying Theorem 1 to “Nice” Open Covers
One easy application of Theorem 1 is to tie it to locally-finite and locally-countable open covers. We have the following theorem.
-
Theorem 2
-
In any CCC space, any locally-countable open cover must be countable. Thus any locally-finite open cover must also be countable.
Theorem 2 gives the well known result that any CCC paracompact space is Lindelof (see Theorem 5 below). In fact, Theorem 2 gives the result that any CCC para-Lindelof space is Lindelof (see Theorem 6 below). A space is para-Lindelof if every open cover has a locally-countable open refinement.
Can Theorem 2 hold for point-finite covers (or point-countable covers)? The answer is no (see Example 1 below). With the additional property of having a Baire space, we have the following theorem.
-
Theorem 3
-
In any Baire space with the CCC, any point-finite open cover must be countable.
A Space is a Baire space if are dense open subsets of , then . For more information about Baire spaces, see this previous post.
.
Proof of Theorem 3
Let be a Baire space with the CCC. Let be a point-finite open cover of . Suppose that is uncountable. We show that this assumption with lead to a contradiction. Thus must be countable.
By Theorem 1, there exists an open set such that is not locally-countable at any point in . For each positive integer , let be the following:
Note that . Furthermore, each is a closed set in the space . Since is a Baire space, every non-empty open subset of is of second category (i.e. it cannot be a union of countably many closed and nowhere dense sets). Thus it cannot be that each is nowhere dense in . For some , is not nowhere dense. There must exist some open such that is dense in . Because is closed, .
Choose . The point is in at most open sets in . Let such that . Clearly . Let . Note that .
Every point in belongs to at most many sets in and already belong to sets in . So each point in can belong to at most additional open sets in . Consider the case and the case . We show that each case leads to a contradiction.
Suppose that . Then each point of can only meet open sets in , namely . This contradicts that is not locally-countable at points in .
Suppose that . Let . Let be the following collection:
Each element of is an open subset of that is the intersection of exactly many open sets in . So is a collection of pairwise disjoint open sets. The open set as a topological space has the CCC. So is at most countable. Thus the open set meets at most countably many open sets in , contradicting that is not locally-countable at points in .
Both cases and lead to contradiction. So must be countable. The proof to Theorem 3 is completed.
As a corollary to Theorem 3, we have the result that every Baire CCC metacompact space is Lindelof.
____________________________________________________________________
Some Applications of Theorems 2 and 3
In proving paracompactness in some of the theorems, we need a theorem involving the concept of star-countable open cover. A collection of subsets of a space is said to be star-finite (star-countable) if for each , only finitely (countably) many sets in meets , i.e., the following set
is finite (countable). The proof of the following theorem can be found in Engleking (see the direction (iv) implies (i) in the proof of Theorem 5.3.10 on page 326 in [1]).
-
Theorem 4
-
If every open cover of a regular space has a star-countable open refinement, then is paracompact.
As indicated in the above section, Theorem 2 and Theorem 3 have some obvious applications. We have the following theorems.
-
Theorem 5
-
Let be a CCC space. Then is paracompact if and only of is Lindelof.
Proof of Theorem 5
The direction follows from the fact that any regular Lindelof space is paracompact.
The direction follows from Theorem 2.
-
Theorem 6
-
Every CCC para-Lindelof space is Lindelof.
Proof of Theorem 6
This also follows from Theorem 2.
-
Theorem 7
-
Every Baire CCC metacompact space is Lindelof.
Proof of Theorem 7
Let be a Baire CCC metacompact space. Let be an open cover of . By metacompactness, let be a point-finite open refinement of . By Theorem 3, must be countable.
-
Theorem 8
-
Every Baire CCC hereditarily metacompact space is hereditarily Lindelof.
Proof of Theorem 8
Let be a Baire CCC hereditarily metacompact space. To show that is hereditarily Lindelof, it suffices to show that every non-empty open subset is Lindelof. Let be open. Then has the CCC and is also metacompact. Being a Baire space is hereditary with respect to open subspaces. So is a Baire space too. By Theorem 7, is Lindelof.
-
Theorem 9
-
Every locally CCC regular para-Lindelof space is paracompact.
Proof of Theorem 9
A space is locally CCC if every point has an open neighborhood that has the CCC. Let be a regular space that is locally CCC and para-Lindelof. Let be an open cover of . Using the locally CCC assumption and by taking a refinement of if necessary, we can assume that each open set in has the CCC. By the para-Lindelof assumption, let be a locally-countable open refinement of . So each open set in has the CCC too.
Now we show that is star-countable. Let . Let be the following collection:
which is is open cover of . Within the subspace , is a locally-countable open cover. By Theorem 2, must be countable. The collection represents all the open sets in that have non-empty intersection with . Thus only countably many open sets in can meet . So is a star-countable open refinement of . By Theorem 4, is paracompact.
-
Theorem 10
-
Every locally CCC regular metacompact Baire space is paracompact.
Proof of Theorem 10
Let be a regular space that is locally CCC and is a metacompact Baire space. Let be an open cover of . Using the locally CCC assumption and by taking a refinement of if necessary, we can assume that each open set in has the CCC. By the metacompact assumption, let be a point-finite open refinement of . So each open set in has the CCC too. Each open set in is also a Baire space.
Now we show that is star-countable. Let . Let be the following collection:
which is is open cover of . Within the subspace , is a point-finite open cover. By Theorem 3, must be countable. The collection represents all the open sets in that have non-empty intersection with . Thus only countably many open sets in can meet . So is a star-countable open refinement of . By Theorem 4, is paracompact.
-
Theorem 11
-
Every locally compact metacompact perfectly normal space is paracompact.
Proof of Theorem 11
This follows from Theorem 10 after we prove the following two points:
- Any locally compact space is a Baire space.
- Any perfect locally compact space is locally CCC.
To see the first point, let be a locally compact space. Let be dense open sets in . Let and let be open such that and is compact. We show that contains a point that belongs to all . Let , which is open and non-empty. Next choose non-empty open such that and . Next choose non-empty open such that and . Continue in this manner, we have a sequence of open sets such that for each , and is compact. The intersection of all the is non-empty. The points in the intersection must belong to each .
To see the second point, let be a locally compact space such that every closed set is a -set. Suppose that is not locally CCC at . Let be open such that and is compact. Then must not have the CCC. Let be a pairwise disjoint collection of open subsets of . Let and let .
Let where each is open in and for each integer . For each , pick . For each , there is some integer such that . So there must exist some integer such that is uncountable.
The set is an infinite subset of the compact set . So has a limit point, say (also called cluster point). Clearly . So . In particular, . Then contains some points of . But for any , , a contradiction. So must be locally CCC at each .
____________________________________________________________________
Some Examples
Example 1
A CCC space with an uncountable point-finite open covers. This example demonstrates that in Theorem 2, locally-finite or locally-countable cannot be replaced by point-finite. Consider the following product space:
i.e, the product space of many copies of the two-point discrete space . Let be the set of all points such that for only finitely many .
The product space is the product of separable spaces, hence has the CCC. The space is dense in . Hence has the CCC. For each , define as follows:
Then is a point-finite open cover of . Of course, in this example is not a Baire space.
The following three examples center around the four properties in Theorem 7 (Baire + CCC + metacompact imply Lindelof). These examples show that each property in the hypothesis is crucial.
Example 2
A separable non-Lindelof space that is a Baire space. This example shows that the metacompact assumption is crucial for Theorem 7.
The example is the Sorgenfrey plane where is the real line with the Sorgenfrey topology (generated by the half-open intervals of the form ). It is well known that is not Lindelof. The Sorgenfrey plane is Baire and is separable (hence CCC). Furthermore, is not metacompact (if it were, it would be Lindelof by Theorem 7).
Example 3
A non-Lindelof metacompact Baire space . This example shows that the CCC assumption in Theorem 7 is necessary.
This space is the subspace of Bing’s Example G that has finite support (defined and discussed in the post A subspace of Bing’s example G. It is normal and not collectionwise normal (hence cannot be Lindelof) and metacompact. The space does not have CCC since it has uncountably many isolated points. Any space with a dense set of isolated points is a Baire space. Thus the space is also a Baire space.
Example 4
A non-Lindelof CCC metacompact non-Baire space . This example shows that the Baire space assumption in Theorem 7 is necessary.
Let be the set of all non-empty finite subsets of the real line with the Pixley-Roy topology. Note that is non-Lindelof and has the CCC and is metacompact. Of course it is not Baire. For more information on Pixley-Roy spaces, see the post called Pixley-Roy hyperspaces. For the purpose of this example, the Pixley-Roy space can be built on any uncountable separable metrizable space.
____________________________________________________________________
Reference
- Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
- Tall, F. D., The Countable Chain Condition Versus Separability – Applications of Martin’s Axiom, Gen. Top. Appl., 4, 315-339, 1974.
____________________________________________________________________
Pixley-Roy hyperspaces
In this post, we introduce a class of hyperspaces called Pixley-Roy spaces. This is a well-known and well studied set of topological spaces. Our goal here is not to be comprehensive but rather to present some selected basic results to give a sense of what Pixley-Roy spaces are like.
A hyperspace refers to a space in which the points are subsets of a given “ground” space. There are more than one way to define a hyperspace. Pixley-Roy spaces were first described by Carl Pixley and Prabir Roy in 1969 (see [5]). In such a space, the points are the non-empty finite subsets of a given ground space. More precisely, let be a space (i.e. finite sets are closed). Let be the set of all non-empty finite subsets of . For each and for each open subset of with , we define:
The sets over all possible and form a base for a topology on . This topology is called the Pixley-Roy topology (or Pixley-Roy hyperspace topology). The set with this topology is called a Pixley-Roy space.
The hyperspace as defined above was first defined by Pixley and Roy on the real line (see [5]) and was later generalized by van Douwen (see [7]). These spaces are easy to define and is useful for constructing various kinds of counterexamples. Pixley-Roy played an important part in answering the normal Moore space conjecture. Pixley-Roy spaces have also been studied in their own right. Over the years, many authors have investigated when the Pixley-Roy spaces are metrizable, normal, collectionwise Hausdorff, CCC and homogeneous. For a small sample of such investigations, see the references listed at the end of the post. Our goal here is not to discuss the results in these references. Instead, we discuss some basic properties of Pixley-Roy to solidify the definition as well as to give a sense of what these spaces are like. Good survey articles of Pixley-Roy are [3] and [7].
____________________________________________________________________
Basic Discussion
In this section, we focus on properties that are always possessed by a Pixley-Roy space given that the ground space is at least . Let be a space. We discuss the following points:
- The topology defined above is a legitimate one, i.e., the sets indeed form a base for a topology on .
- is a Hausdorff space.
- is a zero-dimensional space.
- is a completely regular space.
- is a hereditarily metacompact space.
Let . Note that every finite set belongs to at least one set in , namely . So is a cover of . For , we have . So is indeed a base for a topology on .
To show is Hausdorff, let and be finite subsets of where . Then one of the two sets has a point that is not in the other one. Assume we have . Since is , we can find open sets such that , and . Then and are disjoint open sets containing and respectively.
To see that is a zero-dimensional space, we show that is a base consisting of closed and open sets. To see that is closed, let . Either or . In either case, we can choose open with such that .
The fact that is completely regular follows from the fact that it is zero-dimensional.
To show that is metacompact, let be an open cover of . For each , choose such that and let . Then is a point-finite open refinement of . For each , can only possibly belong to for the finitely many .
A similar argument show that is hereditarily metacompact. Let . Let be an open cover of . For each , choose such that and let . Then is a point-finite open refinement of . For each , can only possibly belong to for the finitely many such that .
____________________________________________________________________
More Basic Results
We now discuss various basic topological properties of . We first note that is a discrete space if and only if the ground space is discrete. Though we do not need to make this explicit, it makes sense to focus on non-discrete spaces when we look at topological properties of . We discuss the following points:
- If is uncountable, then is not separable.
- If is uncountable, then every uncountable subspace of is not separable.
- If is Lindelof, then is countable.
- If is Baire space, then is discrete.
- If has the CCC, then has the CCC.
- If has the CCC, then has no uncountable discrete subspaces,i.e., has countable spread, which of course implies CCC.
- If has the CCC, then is hereditarily Lindelof.
- If has the CCC, then is hereditarily separable.
- If has a countable network, then has the CCC.
- The Pixley-Roy space of the Sorgenfrey line does not have the CCC.
- If is a first countable space, then is a Moore space.
Bullet points 6 to 9 refer to properties that are never possessed by Pixley-Roy spaces except in trivial cases. Bullet points 6 to 8 indicate that can never be separable and Lindelof as long as the ground space is uncountable. Note that is discrete if and only if is discrete. Bullet point 9 indicates that any non-discrete can never be a Baire space. Bullet points 10 to 13 give some necessary conditions for to be CCC. Bullet 14 gives a sufficient condition for to have the CCC. Bullet 15 indicates that the hereditary separability and the hereditary Lindelof property are not sufficient conditions for the CCC of Pixley-Roy space (though they are necessary conditions). Bullet 16 indicates that the first countability of the ground space is a strong condition, making a Moore space.
__________________________________
To see bullet point 6, let be an uncountable space. Let be any countable subset of . Choose a point that is not in any . Then none of the sets belongs to the basic open set . Thus can never be separable if is uncountable.
__________________________________
To see bullet point 7, let be uncountable. Let . Let be any countable subset of . We can choose a point that is not in any . Choose some such that . Then none of the sets belongs to the open set . So not only is not separable, no uncountable subset of is separable if is uncountable.
__________________________________
To see bullet point 8, note that has no countable open cover consisting of basic open sets, assuming that is uncountable. Consider the open collection . Choose that is not in any of the sets . Then cannot belong to for any . Thus can never be Lindelof if is uncountable.
__________________________________
For an elementary discussion on Baire spaces, see this previous post.
To see bullet point 9, let be a non-discrete space. To show is not Baire, we produce an open subset that is of first category (i.e. the union of countably many closed nowhere dense sets). Let a limit point (i.e. an non-isolated point). We claim that the basic open set is a desired open set. Note that where
We show that each is closed and nowhere dense in the open subspace . To see that it is closed, let with . We have . Then is open and every point of has more than points of the space . To see that is nowhere dense in , let be open with . It is clear that where is open in the ground space . Since the point is not an isolated point in the space , contains infinitely many points of . So choose an finite set with at least points such that . For the the open set , we have and contains no point of . With the open set being a union of countably many closed and nowhere dense sets in , the open set is not of second category. We complete the proof that is not a Baire space.
__________________________________
To see bullet point 10, let be an uncountable and pairwise disjoint collection of open subsets of . For each , choose a point . Then is an uncountable and pairwise disjoint collection of open subsets of . Thus if is CCC then must have the CCC.
__________________________________
To see bullet point 11, let be uncountable such that as a space is discrete. This means that for each , there exists an open such that and contains no point of other than . Then is an uncountable and pairwise disjoint collection of open subsets of . Thus if has the CCC, then the ground space has no uncountable discrete subspace (such a space is said to have countable spread).
__________________________________
To see bullet point 12, let be uncountable such that is not Lindelof. Then there exists an open cover of such that no countable subcollection of can cover . We can assume that sets in are open subsets of . Also by considering a subcollection of if necessary, we can assume that cardinality of is or . Now by doing a transfinite induction we can choose the following sequence of points and the following sequence of open sets:
such that if , and for each . At each step , all the previously chosen open sets cannot cover . So we can always choose another point of and then choose an open set in that contains .
Then is a pairwise disjoint collection of open subsets of . Thus if has the CCC, then must be hereditarily Lindelof.
__________________________________
To see bullet point 13, let . Consider open sets where ranges over all finite subsets of and ranges over all open subsets of with . Let be a collection of such such that is pairwise disjoint and is maximal (i.e. by adding one more open set, the collection will no longer be pairwise disjoint). We can apply a Zorn lemma argument to obtain such a maximal collection. Let be the following subset of .
We claim that the set is dense in . Suppose that there is some open set such that and . Let . Then for all . So adding to , we still get a pairwise disjoint collection of open sets, contradicting that is maximal. So is dense in .
If has the CCC, then is countable and is a countable dense subset of . Thus if has the CCC, the ground space is hereditarily separable.
__________________________________
A collection of subsets of a space is said to be a network for the space if any non-empty open subset of is the union of elements of , equivalently, for each and for each open with , there is some with . Note that a network works like a base but the elements of a network do not have to be open. The concept of network and spaces with countable network are discussed in these previous posts Network Weight of Topological Spaces – I and Network Weight of Topological Spaces – II.
To see bullet point 14, let be a network for the ground space such that is also countable. Assume that is closed under finite unions (for example, adding all the finite unions if necessary). Let be a collection of basic open sets in . Then for each , find such that . Since is countable, there is some such that is uncountable. It follows that for any finite , .
Thus if the ground space has a countable network, then has the CCC.
__________________________________
The implications in bullet points 12 and 13 cannot be reversed. Hereditarily Lindelof property and hereditarily separability are not sufficient conditions for to have the CCC. See [4] for a study of the CCC property of the Pixley-Roy spaces.
To see bullet point 15, let be the Sorgenfrey line, i.e. the real line with the topology generated by the half closed intervals of the form . For each , let . Then is a collection of pairwise disjoint open sets in .
__________________________________
A Moore space is a space with a development. For the definition, see this previous post.
To see bullet point 16, for each , let be a decreasing local base at . We define a development for the space .
For each finite and for each , let . Clearly, the sets form a decreasing local base at the finite set . For each , let be the following collection:
We claim that is a development for . To this end, let be open in with . If we make large enough, we have .
For each non-empty proper , choose an integer such that and . Let be defined by:
We have for all non-empty proper . Thus for all non-empty proper . But in , the only sets that contain are and for all non-empty proper . So is the only set in that contains , and clearly .
We have shown that for each open in with , there exists an such that any open set in that contains must be a subset of . This shows that the defined above form a development for .
____________________________________________________________________
Examples
In the original construction of Pixley and Roy, the example was . Based on the above discussion, is a non-separable CCC Moore space. Because the density (greater than for not separable) and the cellularity ( for CCC) do not agree, is not metrizable. In fact, it does not even have a dense metrizable subspace. Note that countable subspaces of are metrizable but are not dense. Any uncountable dense subspace of is not separable but has the CCC. Not only is not metrizable, it is not normal. The problem of finding for which is normal requires extra set-theoretic axioms beyond ZFC (see [6]). In fact, Pixley-Roy spaces played a large role in the normal Moore space conjecture. Assuming some extra set theory beyond ZFC, there is a subset such that is a CCC metacompact normal Moore space that is not metrizable (see Example I in [8]).
On the other hand, Pixley-Roy space of the Sorgenfrey line and the Pixley-Roy space of (the first uncountable ordinal with the order topology) are metrizable (see [3]).
The Sorgenfrey line and the first uncountable ordinal are classic examples of topological spaces that demonstrate that topological spaces in general are not as well behaved like metrizable spaces. Yet their Pixley-Roy spaces are nice. The real line and other separable metric spaces are nice spaces that behave well. Yet their Pixley-Roy spaces are very much unlike the ground spaces. This inverse relation between the ground space and the Pixley-Roy space was noted by van Douwen (see [3] and [7]) and is one reason that Pixley-Roy hyperspaces are a good source of counterexamples.
____________________________________________________________________
Reference
- Bennett, H. R., Fleissner, W. G., Lutzer, D. J., Metrizability of certain Pixley-Roy spaces, Fund. Math. 110, 51-61, 1980.
- Daniels, P, Pixley-Roy Spaces Over Subsets of the Reals, Topology Appl. 29, 93-106, 1988.
- Lutzer, D. J., Pixley-Roy topology, Topology Proc. 3, 139-158, 1978.
- Hajnal, A., Juahasz, I., When is a Pixley-Roy Hyperspace CCC?, Topology Appl. 13, 33-41, 1982.
- Pixley, C., Roy, P., Uncompletable Moore spaces, Proc. Auburn Univ. Conf. Auburn, AL, 1969.
- Przymusinski, T., Normality and paracompactness of Pixley-Roy hyperspaces, Fund. Math. 113, 291-297, 1981.
- van Douwen, E. K., The Pixley-Roy topology on spaces of subsets, Set-theoretic Topology, Academic Press, New York, 111-134, 1977.
- Tall, F. D., Normality versus Collectionwise Normality, Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology (K. Kunen and J. E. Vaughan, eds), Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, 685-732, 1984.
- Tanaka, H, Normality and hereditary countable paracompactness of Pixley-Roy hyperspaces, Fund. Math. 126, 201-208, 1986.
____________________________________________________________________
Topological Spaces with Caliber Omega 1
Let be the first uncountable ordinal. A separable space is one that has a countable dense subset. Any separable space satisfies this property:
-
For every collection of non-empty open subsets of , there is an uncountable such that .
Any space that has this property is said to have caliber . Spaces that have caliber have the countable chain condition (abbreviated by CCC, which means that there is no uncountable pairwise disjoint collection of open subsets of the space). So we have the following implications:
The chain condition “caliber ” is an interesting one. Some of the spaces that have the CCC actually have caliber . For example, separable spaces and products of separable spaces have caliber . Thus the product space (for any uncountable cardinal ) not only has the countable chain condition. It has the stronger property of having caliber , which may make certain proof easier to do. In this post we also provide examples to show that none of the above implications is reversible.
____________________________________________________________________
Delta System Lemma
In proving that product of separable spaces has caliber , the Delta system lemma is used. A collection of sets is said to be a Delta-system (or -system) if there is a set such that for every with , we have . When such set exists, it is called the root of the Delta-system . The following is the statement of Delta-system lemma.
Lemma 1 – Delta-System Lemma
For every uncountable collection of finite sets, there is an uncountable such that is a -system.
The statement of Delta-system lemma presented here is a special case for a general version (see [2], page 49).
____________________________________________________________________
Products of Spaces with Caliber
Theorem 2 below shows that whenever “caliber ” is preserved by taking product with any finite number of factors, “caliber ” is preserved by taking the product of any number of factors. As a corollary, we have the result that the product of any number of separable spaces has caliber . The proof of Theorem 2 is similar to the one stating that whenever CCC is preserved by taking product with any finite number of factors, CCC is preserved by taking the product of any number of factors (see the previous post Product of Spaces with Countable Chain Condition).
Theorem 2
Suppose that is a family of spaces such that has caliber for every finite . Then has caliber .
Proof
In proving the product space having caliber , it suffices to work with basic open sets of the form where for all but finitely many . Let be an uncountable collection of such non-empty open sets. Our plan is to find an uncountable such that .
For each , let be the finite set such that if and only if . Consider . By the Delta-system lemma, there is an uncountable such that is a Delta-system. Let be the root of this Delta-system.
Consider the case that the root of the Delta-system is empty. Then for any and where , we have . For each , we have and we choose in . Then we can define an in such that extends for all . Then in this case let and we have . So we move onto the case that .
Now assume . Let . For each where , let be (i.e. is a projection map). Let .
Consider two cases. One is that is countable. The second is that is uncountable. Suppose is countable. Then there is an uncountable such that for all . Then fix and choose . Then is extendable to some in such that for all . Thus we have .
Now assume is uncountable. By assumption has caliber . Then there is an uncountable such that . Choose . As in the previous case, is extendable to some in such that for all . Thus we have .
Corollary 3
Suppose that is a family of separable spaces. Then has caliber .
Proof
This follows directly from Theorem 2. Note that the product of finitely many separable is separable (hence has caliber ).
____________________________________________________________________
Examples
We now show that the following implications are not reversible.
To get a space with caliber that is not separable, consider the product of many copies of where is a cardinal number greater than continuum. Since is a product of separable spaces, it has caliber according to Corollary 3. It is well known that the product of more than continuum many separable spaces is not separable (see Product of Separable Spaces).
To get a space with the CCC that does not have caliber . Consider the subspace of the product space ( many copies of ) where is the set of all such that for at most countably many . Note that is a space with the CCC since it is a product of separable spaces. Furthermore is a dense subspace of . The property of CCC is hereditary with respect to dense subsets. Thus has the countable chain condition. Here's a discussion of the countable chain condition.
To see that does not have caliber , look at the collection of open sets where each . Note that each belongs to at most countably many . Thus for any uncountable , .
The example shows that dense subspace of a space with caliber need not have caliber .
____________________________________________________________________
Reference
- Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
- Kunen, K., Set Theory, An Introduction to Independence Proofs, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.
- Willard, S., General Topology, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1970.
____________________________________________________________________